A. Lakshmikutty v. Talipparamba Co-operative Stores, Thalipparamba & Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-08-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is bereft of the merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. Lakshmikutty, s/o Shankarankutty

Respondents

The Talipparamba Co-operative Stores, Thalipparamba (represented by its Secretary)
The President, Talipparamba Co-op Stores Ltd., Thalipparamba
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kannur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Sasindran

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri V. T. Madhavanunni
• Sri V. A. Satheesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, A. Lakshmikutty, a retired employee who started as a Lower Division Typist and rose to the post of Secretary, filed WP(C) No. 36302 of 2010 seeking to quash two government pay-revision orders (Ext. P4 of 18.06.2008 and Ext. P6 of 28.08.2010) and to direct the first two respondents to pay the entire arrears due under four pay revision orders. He had not been given the benefits of the pay revisions in the policies of the co‑operative society and claimed arrears together with interest, gratuity recalculation, and Provident Fund contributions. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) had, by ARC No.506/2006 dated 18.06.2008, limited relief to the first two pay revisions up to March 1991 but did not grant subsequent revisions. The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal dismissed the revision petition (RP No.150/2009). The petitioner argued that pay revisions should be implemented as per the four Government orders; he cited precedents (Viswanathan P.V. and Roy Thomas) to support that dismissal of further arrears could be improper if the Society had not accepted revisions. The court examined whether Rule 189 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules empowers the Government to alter pay and noted absence of evidence that the Society’s Board accepted all revisions. It held that extending relief beyond 1991, while the Society was not actively operating, lacks justification. Ultimately the writ petition is dismissed on merits, and the court limited relief to revisions up to 1991.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 189 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued for quashing Ext. P4 and Ext. P6 and directing payment of the entire arrears due under four government pay revision orders, contending that the Society failed to implement revisions and that the ARC order restricted relief to earlier revisions. He asserted that pay revisions should be implemented and that the claim represented a recurring cause of action due to non-disbursement; he relied on precedents (Viswanathan P.V and Roy Thomas) to support the proposition that authority can disburse arrears.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended the petition was time-barred and that relief should be restricted to revisions up to 1991 since the Society was defunct; they argued the Society’s Board had not decided to implement pay revisions and that the Tribunal’s order to pay all arrears was irregular; they asserted no material evidence showed the Managing Committee accepting the revisions, and that the petition should not reopen issues already adjudicated.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited v. Roy Thomas	W.A. No.1017 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.2059 of 2013	Mentioned Only	Unreported judgment cited to illustrate that acceptance by a society/board affects disbursal of arrears; not relied as controlling authority for the present case.
Viswanathan P.V v. Haripad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.	2018(4)KHC 475	Mentioned Only	Division Bench precedent cited to emphasize that acceptance by management is relevant to disbursal of arrears; used to marshal the argument that no such acceptance was shown in the present case.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONER/S:** A.LAKSHMIKUTTY D/O.SHANKARAN KUTTY, AMBIKA NILAYAM, KULIPARAMBA,, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.M.SASINDRAN ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE TALIPARAMBA CO-OPERATIVE STORES THALIPARAMBA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE PRESIDENT THALIPARAMBA CO-OP. STORES LTD.,, THALIPARAMBA. 3 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner through the instant writ petition sought the indulgence of this Court for quashing order Ext.P4 dated 18.6.2008 in A.R.C No.506/2006 and Ext.P6 dated 28.8.2010 in R.P No.150/2009 with a further prayer for direction to the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents to pay the entire amount which is due to the petitioner as per four pay revision orders. 2. Petitioner entered in the service of the Society as Lower Division Typist on 1.3.1963 and promoted to the post of Secretary with effect from 1.8.1982. Scale of pay was fixed as 300-20-400-25-550 with effect from 1.10.1982 as per the order dated 31.5.1986. Government revised the scale of pay in the different class of Societies on four occasions from 1.4.1984 to 31.3.2003 as per the Government order dated 25.11.1986, 9.6.1992, 30.12.1995 and 22.3.2000. Petitioner was not given the benefits of the pay revisions on account of the fact that the respondent Society did not implement the pay revision and in **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **3** that regard only scale of pay sanctioned. On 30.6.2001, the petitioner superannuated. But the respondents failed to implement the pay revision orders and in this regard, petitioner has sought the interest on the pay revision orders over and above the revision of the order and also gratuity on the basis of revised salary. Respondents 1 and 2 paid only Rs.45,183/towards the gratuity. In fact the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,35,914/- with interest as gratuity. Respondents are also bound to pay their contribution to the Provident Fund @ 8.33% of the salary, if the salary was revised, there would an additional payment of Rs.61,829/-. Since the respondents were not ready to effect the pay revision, petitioner filed ARC No.506 of 2006 before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General). The Joint Registrar as per the order dated 18.6.2008, directed the respondents to implement only the first two pay revision orders and pay the benefits upto March, 1991 but not the subsequent pay revision order. Out of the total amount claimed as on 2.1.2009, the first respondent paid only **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **4** Rs.95,017/- and the balance amount according to the petitioner is Rs.9,82,857/-. 3. The aforementioned order was assailed by preferring revision petition before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.8.2010 dismissed the R.P No.150 of 2009. The only point that arose for consideration was that whether the award dated 18.6.2008 is liable to be interfered with or otherwise. In support of the aforementioned contentions, unreported judgment dated 6.8.2018 rendered in _**W.A No.1017 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No.2059 of 2013; titled as the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Limited v. Roy Thomas**_ has been placed on record wherein it is come on record that the pay revision has been accepted by the Society and the Management Committee of the Bank is entitled to take decision regarding the disbursal of the arrears consequential to the revision. Rule 189 of the Co-operative Societies Rules authorizes the Government to fix or alter the pay. Therefore the order of the Tribunal directing to pay two pay revision **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **5** rather directing to pay the entire amount due claimed is highly irregular and illegal. There was no belated claim on behalf of the petitioner for seeking the aforementioned relief as the arbitration case was preferred in 2006 itself ie., after 5years of retirement. The delay cannot be a fatal for non granting of relief. In support of the aforementioned submission, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Viswanathan P.V v. Haripad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.3354 and Others [2018(4)KHC 475)**_ has been relied. 4. Respondents contested the petition and supported the order of the Tribunal on the premise that the petitioner had preferred a belated claim and therefore it should be confined to the relief upto 1991 and further relief could not have been granted on account of the fact that the Society was defunct. Petitioner had earlier filed a petition for the lower court and obtained a decree and the amount was paid, therefore, this Court has no power to reopen the issue which was already closed in the earlier petition. Board of Director of the Society **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **6** had not taken a decision to implement the pay revision orders of the Government. Society was in the verge of liquidation. Petition was expressly time barred. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. I am not in agreement with the argument of the respondents that the petition was time barred, as it is a recurring cause of action in favour of the employee on account of non disbursement of the pay revision arrears. The question which arises for adjudication is whether the Government has power under Rule 189 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules to alter and revise the pay. There would have been a force in the argument, had there been a material on record that the Board of Directors of the Managing Committee had accepted the pay revision orders. In the cited judgment dated 6.8.2018, supra, Division Bench of this Court noticed the resolution of the Bank accepting the pay revision made effective from particular date. From the tenor and mode of the findings rendered by the Arbitration Court and Tribunal, **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **7** there is no such material has come on record or surfaced in accepting the pay revision order by the Board of Directors of the Committee. In my view, the restriction of the pay revision order upto 1991, till the Society was functioning is most reasonable and justified. Writ petition is bereft of the merits and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- sab **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C) NO. 36302 OF 2010** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36302/2010** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN ARC NO.506/2006. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KANNUR IN ARC NO.506/2006 DATED 18/06/2008. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP NO.150/2009 DATED 28/08/2010.